Gross Behaviour - by Leonard Klady

You Can't Afford the Truth

The noise on the tom-tom highway has gone up several decibels with word of a compromise on the Motion Picture Association of America's no-screener policy. It appears that traceable, VHS only screeners will be distributed to members of the Motion Picture Academy. At this writing, members of film guilds who are not AMPAS members won't be on the receiving end of this largesse. It also means that the Hollywood Foreign Press and myriad critics organizations will also have to do without this year.

Following several weeks of granite-like resolve, it was only in the past week that the prospect of some concession on the issue appeared to be more than a faint possibility. Members of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association had heard the rumors when it discussed and decided to cancel its annual awards. In retrospect, the choice of going forward to not go forward, rather than see whether the scuttlebutt had credence, was savvy. And based on the perceived accommodation, LAFCA will sit out this year's season of kudos.

The MPAA "compromise" can be parsed to read: the only award that matters is the Oscar. The irony is that the board of the Academy has in recent years come to the conclusion that the increasingly crowded field of shows honoring the best of the year has diminished its significance. What began as a series of honors that in essence promoted the event in the weeks and months leading up to the big night evolved into a situation where its thunder and viewership was muted and when its envelope was opened, the result felt like an anti-climax. To address that alarming situation, it has stepped up the process and moved up its broadcast by a month for the first time this awards year.

However, it's inarguable that the prizes doled out by critics and guilds in advance of the Oscars remain part of an industry marketing and promotional machine. The industry exploits all the Globes and plaques and scrolls. They court all seemingly legitimate organizations and, in turn, that allows the prize-givers to capitalize on the association by hosting events that generate the sort of sizeable revenues to run their operations on the 364 days not involved with handing out honors.

For more than a decade, a perk and tool of being part of the process was videocassettes of films for one's award consideration. The arrival of some arcane movie gained meaning when it was suddenly toasted by the National Board of Review or nominated in a handful of categories by the Independent Feature Project.

While judging a film on the basis of even an excellently produced tape is not the ideal, sometimes it is logistically one's sole option. The MPAA members sought to remove that alternative without clearly delineating a new method to replace it. At no point were those likely to be effected by change consulted as to how it might affect their process or to spitball ideas that would be mutually acceptable as matters moved forward.

The temerity of the situation is that it ignored the Newtonian tautology about action and reaction. Or, action begets consequences. Among a certain corporate strata, there was disbelief when individuals were quoted stating that when it came to marking their ballot they would penalize films from the studios as their means of protest about the screener ban. It's not a particularly sophisticated means of dissent but it is a wholly understandable human response, especially from someone that feels he has no mechanism for appeal.

It's been my experience as part of a critic's group that doles out annual honors that there is a collective consciousness that such actions are free standing, even noble. And I do not dismiss or denigrate anyone's altruism. I also recognize that a group's choices are influenced by availability. Place any two films of equal virtues side by side and the one seen by the greatest number will prevail. He who controls access holds the trump card.

So, the reaction of the L.A. critics to the MPAA action is interesting on several levels. It is, consciously or not, a response to an action that was not necessarily intended to be disruptive. Nonetheless it altered the group's process and LAFCA responded in its own way by excluding itself; by stating that it would not be a part of a process that had shut a door in its face.

The consequences of the organization's move have yet to play out. Some have already deemed it to be as childish as that of the people who will not vote for studio pictures. But how the group is perceived - honest or petulant or anywhere in between - has little to do with what it has decided to sacrifice that's tangible. It's awards dinner is the group's primary source of revenue just as similar though much grander events form the financial bedrock of the Academy, HFP, IFP and virtually all other awards giving entities.

LAFCA will have to do some belt-tightening but many other organizations simply cannot afford to forego their annual awards cash cow. Many have already signed petitions and made statements that the screener ban is detrimental to members and films but are unlikely to take the next step and go toe-to-toe on this battlefield.

What's yet to be put under the microscope is how groups large and small have been co-opted by an infrastructure that prizes pre-approved entertainment or seeks to financial exploit quality. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with either scenario but it shouldn't be the sole option during awards season and if the screener ban - as it impacts on this arena - unintentionally has the effect of getting all those who host honors to rethink what they do and possibly make changes, it will have provided an estimable service.